Bas Vermeulen wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 12:00, Michael Kratz wrote:At the monthly LUG hackfest I was talking to a couple people about upgrading redhat 8 --> rh9
I've got a redhat 8 server, and out of interest I configured yum to use the
redhat 9 repositories, then toyed with yum update <insert popular package>
(i.e. apache, sendmail, etc) what is interesting is that with some of these
theres very few dependencies to do the upgrade. (i.e. dependency for
sendmail was tcpwrappers, and thats it)
My question is, is this a bad thing to do, and would it really break
anything by upgrading some things to the Redhat 9 versions?
Personally I've just upgraded my server with apt-get upgrade from RH 8 to RH 9. Works so far, with 0 downtime.
Bas Vermeulen
and it was mentioned to boot the rh8 system with the redhat 9 install cd #1 and select upgrade anybody see any pitfalls in this method versus apt-get or yum. I do have physical access to the redhat 8 server.
thx's
A follow-up on my successful rh8 --> rh9 upgrade. The server is behind a firewall and I am the only user ,
primary services are samba and nfs, and 3rd party apps mplayer, gkrellm, fluxbox.
1) Booted from cdrom with cd#1 redhat 9 install and selected the upgrade option.
(about 48 minutes , used the 3 install cd's)
2) Downloaded from rhn the current rh9 kernel 2.4.20-31.9.i686.rpm rpm -ivh 2.4.20-31.9.i686.rpm and edited /boot/grub/grub.conf [default=0]
rebooted
3) Installed yum for rh9 and updated the packages ( I have a /var partition with 600Meg available
and yum cached about 380 Meg of updated packages)
rebooted
4) rpm -e the rh8 gkrellm and the plugins and reinstalled the 2.1.21 version and plugins.
Fixed some entries in the /etc/tripwire/twpol.txt and updated the policy file.
Tested samba, fluxbox and mplayer okay as well as the /nfs mounts fine.
Best regards,
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
